D&D 5E Powers beget powers.

[B.T.]

Something I noticed the other day when leafing through my D&D Essentials book was that flipping from the rogue to the cleric gave me power envy. I was looking at all the options that the wizard had available (at-will, encounter, and daily) and the options the rogue didn't have. Sure, I had my move action powers, but that wasn't the same as the rest of those nifty spells.

Oddly enough, I never had this problem in 3e. I was content with the rogue class because I had so many skills to choose. Even the fighter--with his lackluster "full attack, no skills, final destination"--did not make me envious of other characters' combat options. Yet here I was with a 4e book wanting more powers.

My thinking is that the powers format creates a desire for powers. When your primary options are powers, it creates an expectation for powers to exist. Thus, people want powers because the game centers on them.

Toss out that format, and I think people will be a lot happier with things.

 

[Obryn]

I have to confess - I don't know what you're arguing here.

"The Rogue and Fighter in their Essentials incarnations don't have many powers. Clerics and wizards do. Therefore... take the powers away from someone?" I don't see the connection to your suggestion of "no powers at all" and I don't even really understand it in context - are you saying Clerics and Wizards shouldn't have spells?

The Essentials line of classes was for people who specifically didn't want to deal with all the powers and options. For Rogue and Fighter players who do want that level of options, there's still the very-capable PHB versions of both. Having an AEDU-style version along side the Easy version is, IMO, ideal, and one of 4e's greatest strengths.

-O

 

[Magil]

My thinking is that the powers format creates a desire for powers. When your primary options are powers, it creates an expectation for powers to exist. Thus, people want powers because the game centers on them.

I don't think your antecedental evidence is worth scrapping a reasonably convenient format. Personally, when I played a Slayer, I wasn't envious of other classes for what they had. Also, putting all the spells in a separate section isn't enough to fool most people from realizing that full casters get a bunch of extra options that other classes don't have access to.

(BTW, I think you're kind of missing the point of Essentials, it was designed for people who wanted a more classic-feeling rogue or fighter. If you wanted a rogue or fighter that got as many powers as the wizard and cleric, the PHB is right there.)

Incidentally, however, I do agree that there is probably a mentality that develops from 4E powers that your character is limited to those powers when you decide what it can do. It's not true, of course, but it's definitely something I've noticed and seen, when faced with a situation or their turn in combat, a player thinks "what power should I use" rather than "what should my character do," which is a problem. It's purely psychological, of course, the 4E rules actually support improv well, but that doesn't mean it's not something that should be addressed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something I noticed the other day when leafing through my D&D Essentials book was that flipping from the rogue to the cleric gave me power envy. I was looking at all the options that the wizard had available (at-will, encounter, and daily) and the options the rogue didn't have. Sure, I had my move action powers, but that wasn't the same as the rest of those nifty spells.

Yep, Essentials was garbage that way. Since you say 'rogue' and 'cleric' instead of 'Thief' and 'Warpriest,' I assume you came to Essentials already familiar with the more equitable approach of 4e.

Oddly enough, I never had this problem in 3e.

It's not that odd. The classes in 3e weren't balanced well, but they were better, and the non-casters had a lot more choice than ever before. It was a huge improvement so the remaining imbalances were easy to take.

With Essentials, we'd already seen reasonable parity among classes for two years with 4e, so the stripping of powers and options from the fighter and rogue didn't feel right. You're probably right that, because the non-casters few remaining abilities were still /formatted/ as powers, the loss of real power was more sort of 'in your face,' while in classic D&D, and now, in 5e, the sense that your non-casters is 'different' masks the reality of his inferiority, because the comparison doesn't come as naturally.

 

[B.T.]

Sounds like you're not a fan of Essentials.

while in classic D&D, and now, in 5e, the sense that your non-casters is 'different' masks the reality of his inferiority, because the comparison doesn't come as naturally.

I got the impression that people were fairly pleased with the 5e fighter thus far despite a few necessary tweaks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think what you're getting at is that (in most of D&D, but particularly in this case), classes are overused as design elements. Swinging your sword extra hard isn't a feat that you need to train to access (Power Attack), it's something anyone can do. The same problem pervades the entire power system. Class abilities should make you better at what you do, but should not be the gateway to anything. The concept of powers forces you to overbuild your character to get access to system rules that really don't have anything to do with that character, like the ability to swing a sword a certain way.

The solution is to write a really good combat chapter (and rules for noncombat things), with rules for anyone to swing hard/smite/trip/grapple/combine moves, and so on, and write the classes such that they get better at doing those things: higher numbers, more actions in a round, etc.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I never understood the "he's got more powers, abilities, whatever, on his sheet so that some how makes his class better" mentality.

This was the 1st thing that put me off of 4th edition. I don't care that Bobby the Wizard has more "abilities" due to his class, as long as I am doing what my class was designed to do then I don't care many less "abilities" it has. I play a fighter to swing my sword and wear armor, I don't care how many steps I need to go through or how many less I need to go through to do what my class was designed to do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sounds like you're not a fan of Essentials.

I rarely use the word 'garbage' to describe things I like, yeah. But, specifically, just of the ill-designed classes in Essentials that deviated too much from the 4e advancement scheme ('AEDU' though that's over-simplified). The Monster Vault is a great resource, for instance, and Heroes of the Feywild and Heroes of the Element Chaos, while technically post-Essentials, were strong supplements.

I got the impression that people were fairly pleased with the 5e fighter thus far despite a few necessary tweaks.

The 5e fighter, like the 3.x fighter, is a pretty darn good design, but one that can't hope to compete with traditional Vancian and similar casting mechanics in the long run.

We won't know until we see the level 1-10 playtest if 5e is going to make any effort to keep the melee types and skill monkeys relevant out of the lower levels by reigning in traditional excesses of higher level casters. So far, there's nothing to indicate it will, and the real test will come beyond 10th level.

 

[Viking Bastard]

The Essentials Thief is a beautiful construct, though. Well oiled machine of a class and on the brink of being overpowered.

 

[Obryn]

Speaking from the other side of the coin, I think the Essentials line is one of the best and most necessary 4e supplements released. I am a huge fan of the original AEDU classes, but adding simpler characters for new players (or old players who like simpler classes) is awesome.

Despite Tony's convinctions, I've never found an imbalance, and I've been running a mixed table since the line was released. Right now, I have a Scout in the party, and I recently had a Hunter too (who was startlingly effective). Before then, we've had Thieves, Knights, and a Sentinel. I think their addition filled a crucial gap, though I'd never want to run an E-Only game myself.

-O